Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT155 S3 P3 Q18 Explanation

Nanoscale Computer Chips

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsInferenceScience

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

This passage was adapted from an article published

Competition to make computer chips smaller and, consequently, faster and more efficient has driven a technological revolution, fueled economic growth, and rapidly made successive generations of computers obsolete. Yet at the current rate of progress this march toward miniaturization will hit a wall by about 2010—for many, an unthinkable prospect. The laws are investigating a different molecular pattern maker: peptides, amino acid chains that are shorter than proteins.

The project grew out of Belcher’s doctoral research on abalone. Her research group discovered in the mid-1990s that a specific peptide causes calcium carbonate to crystallize into the structure found only in the tough abalone shell. From that discovery, Belcher and Hu, Belcher’s postdoctoral adviser at the time, realized that if they resembling accelerated evolution, they developed additional related peptides from those that had the initially promising characteristics.

Hu says that in order to use such a method to assemble a set of circuit-building tools it would be necessary to identify many additional organic compounds that bind to circuit-component materials. The group is making progress on that quest. As they have expanded their targets to 20 more semiconductor materials, their glue. It will take that kind of finesse at the nanoscale to produce selfassembling circuits.

What this question is testing

Inference

Topic

The author is profiling a piece of chemistry research aimed at solving a problem the computer industry is about to run into.

Framework

Highlight Noteworthy. The author isn't fighting an opponent — they're explaining why this research matters and where it stands.

Main Point

Here's the simpler version: computer chips have been getting smaller every year, but that march is about to hit a physical wall — transistors can't shrink below 25 nanometers using current techniques. Living cells, though, build smaller structures all the time. So scientists are looking to biology for tools. Belcher and Hu are betting on peptides (short amino-acid chains): they've found peptides that can grab onto specific semiconductor crystals and even act like molecular glue. That's the kind of fine-grained tool you'd need to build circuits that assemble themselves at the nanoscale.

P1: A wall is coming, and biology might help

Chips have been getting smaller, faster, cheaper — but at the current rate, this hits a wall by about 2010. The laws of physics say current transistors can't go below 25 nanometers. Cells, however, build complex structures smaller than that all the time. So the question is whether we can harness those biological processes. Most researchers focus on DNA. Belcher and Hu are working with peptides instead.

P2: How the idea developed

Belcher had been studying abalone shells and found a peptide that controls how calcium carbonate crystallizes there. She and Hu reasoned: if we can find peptides that control crystal growth in semiconductor materials, we'd have a tool for building tiny electronics. No such peptide was known, so they took the bold approach of growing a billion random peptides and testing which ones grabbed onto silicon, gallium arsenide, or indium phosphide crystals. They found a handful, and then refined them by a process resembling evolution.

P3: Where the project is now

To make a real toolkit they'd need many more binding peptides. They're getting there — hundreds of them, across 20+ materials. They're also designing peptides that latch onto two different crystals at once, which acts like a tiny dab of glue. That kind of precision is what circuits that build themselves will need.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
18.

Which one of the following statements about the peptides that Belcher and Hu tested in relation to semiconductors can be most reasonably

Answer choices

  1. Correct58% picked this

    At least some of them did not previously exist

    Why this is right

    Remember it's "most reasonably inferred". We might not have must-be-true proof of this, but the gist is there: - "no known peptide could do what they want" - "grew a random assortment of one billion of them" - "they developed additional related peptides from the promising ones they had found" Each of those is suggestive of this answer choice. If no known peptide could do what they want, then they sought find something that didn't already exist in nature (technically, something that had not yet been discovered in nature). By growing a random assortment of one billion of them, it seems very likely that they happened to get some random ones that don't exist in nature. And then the active sense of developing, or genetically engineering, the type of peptide they want insinuates that they were now playing God.

    Skill tested: Inference · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  2. Out of Scope: bound to three18% picked this

    At least one of them was found to bind to three

    It's very plausible that this happened, but there isn't any textual support for it. The paragraph stressed that they found a few peptides that only bind to one of the three compounds, but that doesn't tell us that some of the peptides bound to all three.

  3. Too Specific: S but not GA9% picked this

    At least some of them were tested in relation to silicon but not in relation

    Silicon, gallium arsenide, and indium phosphide are all treated interchangeably in the once sentence we hear about them. We don't have any support for the idea that some peptides were tested for S but not for GA.

  4. Contradicted7% picked this

    At least one of them was in use in the computer chip industry prior to

    This seems to go against that line that "no known peptide was able to bind to semiconductor materials". And the fact that they grew a random assortment doesn't sound like they're recycling peptides that are already used in the computer chip industry.

  5. Out of Scope8% picked this

    Other researchers had previously tested at least some of them for possible reactions with semiconductor materials other than silicon,

    Out of Scope: other than S, GA, IP The line that says "no known peptide was able to bind to semiconductor materials" does seem to suggest that some people had already tried to see if they could find a peptide that binds to semiconductor materials, but we'd have no idea which semiconductor materials were used. Given that S, GA, and IP are three widely used semiconductor materials it would be plausible that previous research also would have tested those materials. Ultimately, we're just speculating either way, which is why the answer is unsupportable.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free